originally posted by: Barcs
That doesn't make it wrong. And no, flying fish didn't become birds. That's the silliest thing I've heard in a long time from the science deniers.
Science is a method of fact gathering.

No because the thought that flying fish became birds is as silly as believing that rocks and water and lightning or whatever else existed in your
primordial soup, over time became humanity.
Compared to the silliness of that, flying fish becoming birds over any time period cant sound as silly can it....now

Yes science is a method of gathering fact, then it is explaining it, even utilising those facts.
Barcs dont become petty, I dont care to argue

We are discussing evolution, not origins. origins is still being carefully investigated, but we are much further along on evolutionary theory. this
thread is full of evidence for that. seriously its almost as good as bing. although i prefer google. and i take consolation from the fact that those
arguing against evolution cant stop other users from checking out the facts for themselves. don't be afraid to do your own detective work guys. Me and
others have very obligingly provided enough to links to earn you a half credit in your biology class lol

We are reaching the climax of human intellectual dishonesty.
Since you don't want to open links, I'll copy/paste the content for you.

Oktar has written numerous books under the pen name Harun Yahya. "Harun" refers to the biblical Aaron and "Yahya" refers to the New Testament John
the Baptist. His books on faith-related topics attempt to communicate the existence and oneness of God (Allah in the Qur'an) according to the Islamic
faith, and are written with the main purpose of introducing Islam to those who are strangers to religion. Each of his books on science-related topics
stresses his views on the might, sublimity, and majesty of God. A sub-group within this series are the series of "Books Demolishing the Lie of
Evolution", a critique of the ideas of materialism, evolution, Darwinism, and atheism.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
May I ask some honest questions? Just looking for honest answers.

Are you certain the "finger prints" you see as evidence of design belong to Yahweh and not any of the numerous other creator Gods or Goddesses from
various cultures throughout various times in history?

What evidence do you see that suggests to you it was Yahweh's hand in the creation of all things?

originally posted by: josehelps
So guys, please don't try to claim that Science disproves creation, science doesn't understand the Supernatural as explained by the definition.
You're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Evolution supporters do not claim that science disproves creation. It's the creationists that deny evolution because they incorrectly believe
that's what science says. Science is neutral on creation because there is no evidence for it. Evolution is independent from creation or origin of
life and both of them could be true. Science understands evidence, and since there's no evidence of anything supernatural to ever have existed, the
default position is that they do not exist. If science one day discovers god, then god will no longer be considered supernatural, but you have to
realize that there are many beliefs about creation that do not require a supernatural creator, so saying that creationism is supernatural is a guess
based on a limited amount of interpretations.

I'm going to assume that for the most part the links you posted for evidence of creation reflect your views. Give me some time to go through the
material, and just ponder in general. I want to form a proper reply. Though honestly I'm not sure it will consist of anything you haven't already read
in this thread or others.

Can you please highlight the scientific parts in those links? I don't see it anywhere. I see ignorance and misunderstanding with no backing. Please
show me. Or do you have blind faith in those websites to give you absolute truth?

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:
I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.
II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.
III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then
amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then

And I'm supposed to take this site seriously? How many times does it need to be explained that evolution is genetic mutations and natural selection,
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SOLAR SYSTEM OR BIG BANG OR ABIOGENESIS. It's laughable that you guys keep pushing this lie. It's called a strawman,
because you choose to believe your own false definition of evolution and use it to debunk it.

Thanks for making my day. You gave me a nice laugh reading that site and laughter is very healthy.

Excellent videos overall, especially the one Heston narrates. There is indeed a lot of evidence that is ignored and suppressed, just to defend a
"theory" that relies more on faith than anything factual. S&F for the thread, and I am off to read the responses.

At 23:08 in the first video he says the most common dinosaur we find in our time is the plesiosaur, and mentions the 'credible' evidence of Loch
Ness and Champ in Lake Champlain. 'Nuff said.

So, the fact that sounds recorded in Lake Champlain have been identified to be from some unknown marine mammal isn't credible evidence to you that
there is in fact, something there? Hundreds of sightings aside, that's solid evidence.

Unidentified means there IS something unknown there, however. It also means there is, of course, not a match to anything, as of yet. Duh? The fact
is, it's evidence, which you implied doesn't exist, and which I have shown does.

That seems typical for the responses I read on the first page, and I suspect that trend continues through all 30-something pages. Calling the
evidence "pseudo science", claims that "some Christians believe in evolution", and on and on. Seen it all before, and not a word of it is based
on anything but opinion.

Let's look at some of the actual data, shall we? Explain, please, evolutionists, how the pillar in Cambodia has a cute little stegosaurus on it.
Explain the human and dino tracks together UNDERNEATH limestone shelves, which is proof they were NOT faked, as is claimed. Explain the
pterosaur-headed prayer sticks. Explain the numerous ancient pictures that are clear and obvious representations of dinosaurs, that any elementary
school student would recognize as such.

Explain the universal "dragon" legends, in which many descriptions fit known dinosaurs.

Or, do the usual, and toss out labels and opinions, and pretend there is nothing to see. Like the emperor's new outfit, do you?

Hi again. You haven't commented on my disagreement with your statement that no new genes are created through mutation and horizontal transfer.

More to the point, you still haven't answered the questions I asked you in the same post:

Do you think life comes in different 'kinds'? That animals are a different 'kind' of life from plants? That humans are a different 'kind'
of life from animals? Would you care to explain what the difference is?

And while we're on the subject, would you care to explain the difference between animate and inanimate matter? This is something I have never been
able to understand. It seems obvious at first, but on closer inspection none of the attributes that seem to create a distinction between life and dead
matter are actually unique to one or the other. Very disturbing.

If you don't believe there are any differences, don't bother to reply and I will know what to think. But I would still like to hear whether or not
you feel your objections to evolutionary theory remain valid in the light of the new information I have given you about genes. I can support the
information with links if you like.

Also, I am still keen to learn what barriers you think exist to prevent 'microevolution' turning into 'macroevolution'. To my mind, you haven't
yet answered that question either.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
That is looked at around the 28-29 minute mark of the "Flinstones Archeology" video. The fins are just something decorative in the background. You can
see if they are part of this creature, it has a nice beer belly going. I think the video shows that it is most likely a Cambodian rhino like Grim
posted a pic of.

It's not that there is nothing to see. It's that people often see what they want to see without considering they may be wrong. Those links will give
you some additional information to consider. Come to your own conclusions though.

Unidentified means there IS something unknown there, however. It also means there is, of course, not a match to anything, as of yet. Duh? The fact
is, it's evidence, which you implied doesn't exist, and which I have shown does.

That seems typical for the responses I read on the first page, and I suspect that trend continues through all 30-something pages. Calling the
evidence "pseudo science", claims that "some Christians believe in evolution", and on and on. Seen it all before, and not a word of it is based on
anything but opinion.

Let's look at some of the actual data, shall we? Explain, please, evolutionists, how the pillar in Cambodia has a cute little stegosaurus on it.
Explain the human and dino tracks together UNDERNEATH limestone shelves, which is proof they were NOT faked, as is claimed. Explain the
pterosaur-headed prayer sticks. Explain the numerous ancient pictures that are clear and obvious representations of dinosaurs, that any elementary
school student would recognize as such.

Explain the universal "dragon" legends, in which many descriptions fit known dinosaurs.

Or, do the usual, and toss out labels and opinions, and pretend there is nothing to see. Like the emperor's new outfit, do you?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.